From: Howard C. Berkowitz (hcb@gettcomm.com)
Date: Sun Jun 20 2004 - 17:22:34 GMT-3
At 4:07 PM -0400 6/20/04, John Underhill wrote:
>Witness: this is what is known as a 'clear cut case of irony'.
>By deciding to respond to the group address, you realize of course, that you
>have violated that same policy? All kidding aside..
>I have always felt that it would serve the best interests of your company to
>make more resources available to CCIE candidates. Say, some subset of the
>learning tools that are available to channel partners, could also be
>available to those that have passed the qualification exam. You have to look
>at it in terms of investing company resources in those that are so clearly
>committed to investing in you. This is a symbiotic relationship, many of the
>engineers that are committed to learning the nuances of your products, are
>also the same people who effect purchasing decisions within their respective
>companies, and by better facilitating the learning process, you are in turn
>both insuring product loyalty, and nurturing a culture of qualified
>engineers.
I don't necessarily agree with it, but it's a more than two way
symbiosis. Cisco has a symbiosis with various types of partners,
which it protects, sometimes to the detriment of individuals.
For example, there is the restriction that certifications become
associated with a particular channel partner and can't be transferred
without consent of first partner to register that person as part of
their qualification. Apparently, it doesn't make a difference there
if the person or the partner paid for the certification.
In like manner, instructor certifications are completely tied to the
learning partner. It's a little different procedure (unless it's
changed) than for the VAR partnerships. An instructor can go to
another partner, but that partner has to pay the full, non-prorated
instructor registration fee before they can use that instructor
full-time. That being said, it's not at all unheard of for learning
partner B to "rent" an instructor for some course from partner "A",
but "B" has to have "A's" permission on a per-course basis -- and
often would pay "A" a consulting fee.
Cisco Academy is also set up on a multiple-semester basis and cannot
offer courses in less time, to avoid competition with Learning
Partners that, in principle, are the places you go to when you want
quick training.
Like it or not, it appears Cisco has a corporate policy of valuing
partner relations over individual relations. From their business
point of view, that's not a completely illogical decision, if they
see their revenue stream depending on partners rather than
individuals.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Jul 03 2004 - 19:40:45 GMT-3